The State of Affairs in Russia

[Martinus]

I also think that Putin is genuinely convinced that it was the Western machinations that caused Maidan to happen and Ukraine to slip his grasp. He is a KGB man. He has been having his agents infiltrating and controlling Ukraine. That it chose to side with the West surely must be then the effect of the fact that Western agents were better than his.

[PJL]

To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.

[Martinus]

To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.

Not really, or at least he shows he doesn't understand how democratic societies work. Like, few years ago when he was furious for Denmark not stopping a Chechen conference in Copenhagen - undoubtedly, the organisation of that may have received some indirect funding from the state but that does not mean the state can influence them the way Russia wants to do.

Similarly, Western funding for an organisation that supports democracy or human rights - and later lends its support to an anti-government protest is not the same as West funding agents instigating protests.

[PJL]

To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.

Similarly, Western funding for an organisation that supports democracy or human rights - and later lends its support to an anti-government protest is not the same as West funding agents instigating protests.

Well the former is more reactive while the latter is more proactive. Still Putin doesn't really know (or want to know) the difference between the two.

[Solmyr]

You make it sounds like Putin has always had Crimea/Donetsk as plan B (or even a long term plan). I disagree.

Actually, there are now reports being published (in Novaya Gazeta for example) that Russia had a plan to annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine ready before Yanukovich even resigned.

For the Russian speakers, here for example: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/67389.html

[Valmy]

To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.

He is not the only one.  The Americans who always oppose our foreign policy adventures believe this as well.  As always I would like to know how exactly this funding went down and how it influenced the scenario.

[Barrister]

To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.

He is not the only one.  The Americans who always oppose our foreign policy adventures believe this as well.  As always I would like to know how exactly this funding went down and how it influenced the scenario.

They'd better have been helping the Maidan protestors.  I mean, that's what I would want the US to be doing - helping pro-democracy activists around the world.

[Valmy]

They'd better have been helping the Maidan protestors.  I mean, that's what I would want the US to be doing - helping pro-democracy activists around the world.

Well the opponents here would say this was reckless and that stirring conflict with Russia is dangerous due to their nuclear weapon arsenal.

But again I would like to know the specifics about how we helped them and if we influenced their activities in some way.

[dps]

I agree with JR that Putin does not want to conquer the world - but he wants to rebuild the Russian empire.

It's seems to me that it's pretty clear that Putin (and to be fair, other Russians as well) sees the other former Soviet republics as rightfully belonging to Russia, either as de jure parts of Russian territory or as de facto Russian satellites.  I have doubts that Russia would be satisfied with that if they manage to achieve it, but I don't think they have any specific plans beyond that (or even necessarily specific plans on how to accomplish it in the first place).

[Berkut]

I agree with JR that Putin does not want to conquer the world - but he wants to rebuild the Russian empire.

It's seems to me that it's pretty clear that Putin (and to be fair, other Russians as well) sees the other former Soviet republics as rightfully belonging to Russia, either as de jure parts of Russian territory or as de facto Russian satellites.  I have doubts that Russia would be satisfied with that if they manage to achieve it, but I don't think they have any specific plans beyond that (or even necessarily specific plans on how to accomplish it in the first place).

I think much of what has happened and is happeing isn't really about Russia trying to create an empire per se, but rather about Russia trying to convince the world that they are still a great power.

The West certainly stepped on their toes in that we expanded NATO, which, let's be honest, is a historically anti-Soviet/Russian alliance right up to their borders. We did this because we didn't think they could really do much about it, or we expected them to not care because NATO has largely morphed from being an anti-Soviet alliance to being more of a generic Western alliance without being specifically targetted at Russia, and gee, isn't that as obvious to them as it is to us?

Of course it isn't obvious to those paranoid nutcases. So they are reacting however they can to what they see as a violation of Russia's sphere of influence.

[CountDeMoney]

For those posters who have forgotten the fact that nuclear weapons still exist, are still part of the US--NATO-Russian strategic dynamic and were just mentioned in that one episode of VH1's "I Love the 80's", the one with Donkey Kong.

Ash Carter warns Russia on nukes
"U.S. responses must make clear to Russia that if it does not return to compliance, our responses will make them less secure than they are today."
POLITICO
By Philip Ewing
2/23/15 6:25 PM EST
Updated 2/23/15 9:43 PM EST

Ash Carter has quietly thrown down the gauntlet in a lingering dispute with Russia: If President Vladimir Putin continues to violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the U.S. could respond in kind.

"The range of options we should look at from the Defense Department could include active defenses to counter intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missiles; counter-force capabilities to prevent intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missile attacks; and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance U.S. or allied forces," Carter told senators in little-noticed written answers to follow-up questions from his confirmation hearing.

The defense secretary's bottom line: "U.S. responses must make clear to Russia that if it does not return to compliance, our responses will make them less secure than they are today."

Obama administration officials believe Russia began testing what they call its illegal cruise missile as long ago as 2008, predating the current crisis in Europe over Moscow's military incursion into Ukraine. And they have accused Russia of violating the 1987 INF treaty under which the U.S. and then-Soviet Union agreed to pull back land-based missiles deployed around Europe that many feared could escalate a crisis too quickly for either side to control.

Now, with Putin still pressing into Ukraine, some members of Congress are even more eager to push back on what they see as Russia's violations of the INF treaty. And Carter's endorsement of new "counter-force capabilities," following his cautious support for arming Ukraine's government against the Russian invaders, puts him on the hawkish side of the spectrum as President Barack Obama and his advisers weigh how to resolve the standoff.

The Russian president may have secretly been developing a new intermediate missile even as diplomats were negotiating the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that the Senate approved in 2010, a breach of faith that hawks say deserves a serious answer. Carter would appear to agree. In his written answers to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), he said Putin had imperiled a cornerstone of global stability since the Cold War.

"Russia's continued disregard for its international obligations and lack of meaningful engagement on this particular issue require the United States to take actions to protect its interests and security, as well as those of its allies and partners," Carter said. "U.S. efforts should continue to remind Russia why the United States and Russia signed this treaty in the first place and be designed to bring Russia back into verified compliance with its obligations."

Critics in Congress, meanwhile, call the violation of the INF agreement just another broken Russian promise.

"Within the last year, Mr. Putin has flagrantly and deliberately violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Budapest Memorandum, and the Minsk Protocol," said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), long a top congressional delegate to NATO. "In order to change Putin's calculus, President Obama must stop stalling and listen to his own secretary of defense, members of Congress in his own party and dozens of military and civilian leaders who have all recommended actions to empower the Ukrainian army so they can successfully confront the growing Russian threat."

Another Republican, Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers, said during an Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this month that there's no reason for Washington to continue to honor the deal.

"If we're the only team that's sticking to the treaty," he complained, "then I don't know why we're sticking with the treaty, since they are flagrantly violating it."

Russian leaders, however, may already feel the U.S. and Europe have violated the treaty, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. Moscow points to the U.S.-backed Aegis Ashore system, which the Obama administration is fielding in Romania this year in place of former President George W. Bush's previously planned ballistic missile defense system.

Weapons don't need to be nuclear to violate the INF agreement. Between Aegis Ashore and Lockheed Martin's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, which Poland is buying, Russia most likely feels it has both cause and cover to field a new intermediate-range missile, Kristensen said. Plus, the U.S. plans to field an extended-range JASSM, a new anti-ship missile and new ways to use weapons that exist in its stockpile.

For example, the Navy and Air Force have demonstrated their ability to launch a Raytheon-built Tomahawk cruise missile and then retarget it in flight. The pilot of an Air Force F-22 Raptor redirected one missile launched from a Navy submarine, and last month, the crew of a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet directed a Tomahawk launched from a destroyer onto a target vessel at sea.

"This is potentially a game-changing capability for not a lot of cost," Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said at a trade show in San Diego this month.

In view of these developments, Russian commanders most likely believe their work is entirely appropriate. They're believed to want a weapon that could defeat NATO's formidable air defenses and enable them to hit targets the way the U.S. uses its precision strike missiles and bombs, Kristensen said.

And as long as Russia's new missile is not deployed or in production, it technically has not violated the INF.

"This is a political show," Kristensen said. "One side does something, so other side has to do it too."

[derspiess]

For those posters who have forgotten the fact that nuclear weapons still exist, are still part of the US--NATO-Russian strategic dynamic and were just mentioned in that one episode of VH1's "I Love the 80's", the one with Donkey Kong.

So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?

[CountDeMoney]

So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?

I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."

[Valmy]

So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?

I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."

I was discussing a very specific scenario!

[CountDeMoney]

I was discussing a very specific scenario!

Yes, and that scenario would most likely lead to an escalation of nuclear weapon deployment, particularly considering the Russian doctrinal acceptance since 2000 of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in sphere-of-influence conflicts--never mind the the fact that any NATO defense of Estonia, or any other frontier member of NATO would necessitate expanding the conflict to sovereign Russian soil proper, and there's your ball game.